I guess the question fro the modern age is: do sock puppets have a soul?

I have a feeling that on one level they do, but on another level they should probably be kicked from the server and refused to be reborn as stupid new entities.

A sock asking for mercy is like a fundamentalist asking for tolerance and understanding.

For me the evidence that natural chemicals operates within consistent boundaries demonstrates that reality has unity and is the product of one mind. Believe it or not? For me there is one Creator of the physical universe.

However God is also the expression of Spirit demonstrated in the moral purity or a person of character, attitude, and action that enhances life and advances goodness and blessing of a community and a nation.

Yes this is a belief system and for me it is the most coherent faith in advancing society and community. I find most atheists negative, rebellious, and advocates of moral impurity, mainly for the reason it allows the denial of a moral conscience.

Because atheists have no moral conscience or respect for the sanctity of human life they believe they can destroy a human foetus without consequence. That they without conscience may cross breed human embryos with animal sperm supposedly for the advancement of their view of science. That they cannot believe death and deformity of an individual is natural, and prefer to believe they can outsmart what is natural [allowed by God] by destroying healthy human cells and cross breeding them with lower living species [a practise that is morally condemned].

Pilo you defame me, not taking offense but it is just that.
How can you say I , yes me would say it is ok to kill an unborn child?
Tobias old sock! so it is fear driven! your rude intervention telling us what to think what to say.
You fear being asked to justify your beliefs.
Now followers of some Gods are known to have far more money than us, and to use it in law cases against those who question the God they follow, just for a few minutes forget Jesus.
Let us explore other Gods,say a new one, or one that did not exist in mans mind 100 years ago.
Now remember we are bound by defamation laws and respect for this forum.
Most know such a God I not for a second believe it is other than a well written story.
What right have we to impose our thoughts on this religion?
Apart from over active defense systems that may damage us is it our right to say my God no others?
Why is asking a question, seeking answers often for some believers such a sin?
I question any God that both wants us to spread his story around the world.
Yet needs socks such as Tobias to say free speech and ideas are wrong.
Or one that needs Pilo to invent crimes to place on the heads of those who inquire without being on their knees.
In fact in my view such is the tool so many use to defend God I am forced to question why? a God could defend himself without such threats.

DICKIE :)

verrry good call.. about sermons.. yep..I rather like that one.

Jesus was excellent at this.. he spoke in little stories mostly.. OHHHHHH that Pastors and preachers would follow his example :)

Just imagine if the disciples had said to Jesus. "Now Lord.. we have 45 minutes to fill please don't finish early or the cakes will not be ready".....

Bugsy.. I was accused of falsely representing Greenleaf, I provided sources which support my main contention.. I was asking PERICLES .. who disagreed with me to provide his sources..not you.

In anycase.. you are sounding like the Muslims who rip into Jay Smith about his claims that the Quran includes many stories picked up from 2nd century Judaism.. they don't respond to the charge they just go on and on about Jays 'not quite finished' Phd..and then accuse him of lying.. forget the ISSUE.. no..just try to crucify Jay....

I get that a lot :) 'ducks back..water'.. you know how it goes.

cheers.

K.JIM..... mate..what has high court judges got to do with 'Is there a God' ?
Keep in mind.. how we Christians view mankind.. is not a LAW.. its faith..
cheers 2

I don't think that it is up to me to provide links,Boaz, at least, not yet.

Let's go over your claims one more time.

>>...Simon Greenleaf (former atheist)...<<

You made this claim, Boaz, I think that it is up to you to substantiate it. Not by mindlessly quoting others who use the same phrase, but by providing more specific evidence. I pointed out that "Simon Greenleaf was an evangelical episcopalian his entire life... before he was at Harvard, he was already writing tracts for the American Tract Society, and heavily involved in the Massachusetts Bible Society."

If you can find a source that demonstrates this to be untrue, I will present my sources and we can compare them. Otherwise - and you have done this on more occasions that I can count - you will simply change the subject and move on.

It is about time you became a little more accountable for your casual, off the cuff "facts", Boaz, and here would be a good start.

I notice that you have already changed your tune from "Simon Greenleaf... who founded the Harvard law school" to agreeing with me that he was "one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School". That's good. Far more accurate, but carrying considerably less impact.

Nobody doubts that Greenleaf wrote a screed that is now desribed as having the intention "to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

However, given the awareness that he was a lifelong and devout Christian, exactly how i) surprising and ii) credible is this "evidence"?

Further, if you wanted to be thorough in your assessment of the piece (which of course you don't), you would find that he dashed off this piece of self-serving polemic as an afterthought to his major works on the nature of evidence. He was, in fact, testing the work he had just completed by applying it to one of his favourite topics, to see how it shaped up.

And as Bugsy has already pointed out, it smells of a pre-judgement of the outcome, all the way through.

Belly,
I am not singling out any individual, just a belief system that can practise the destruction of a perfectly healthy foetus, and can allow the cross breeding of humans with animals. A belief system that fails to uphold the sanctity of a human life.